Immigration Scandal
Stuff has an article on aspects of the Mary Anne Thompson saga at Immigration.
Mary Anne Thompson, is formerly director of the policy advisory group in the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and later that dept’s Acting CEO. In 1997 she headed up the economic advisory team to then Treasurer Winston Peters.
A number of the usual suspects have roles, even if only as walk-ons.
They include:-
- Helen Clark – Thompson was a senior adviser in Dept of Prime Minister
- Heather Simpson – who did not get on with Thompson, per the SST
- Mark Prebble – head of SSC, former colleague of Thompson
- James Buwalda – former boss
The article begins:-
A senior immigration official appointed in controversial circumstances has been named as one of those involved in processing the illegal residency application of immigration boss Mary Anne Thompson’s family.
The Sunday Star-Times can reveal that Mai Malaulau, director of the service’s Pacific division, allegedly told staff to process the application by Thompson’s nephew and his wife from Kiribati.
The post is quite lengthy, so please read on over the break
Then a few paragraphs on, we read:-
When former justice secretary David Oughton later launched an investigation into the case, Malaulau denied any such involvement. Oughton’s report concluded that there was “no evidence to link [Malaulau] with the decision making”.
Given the poor record of these internal inquiries there needs to be standing statutory commission, much like the New South Wales – Independent Commission Against Corruption, with a wide ranging brief to take evidence, conduct investigations and refer them to an independent special prosecutor, not Crown Law, for a decision on whether or not to proceed with court action.
After One News broke details of the case last month, the State Services Commission launched a new inquiry, which will look at the roles of Malaulau and other staff, and earlier moves by Thompson to get family into the country which were not covered by the Oughton report.
So Oughton’s report was not comprehensive and was incomplete. However, given past track records, it may well have been that the Terms of Reference for Oughton were carefully constructed so as to achieve a particular outcome.
Malaulau was appointed to her position by one of Thompson’s inner circle, Kerupi Tavita, who was handpicked by Thompson to help her restructure the Immigration Service when she took over in late 2004. They had worked together in the prime minister’s department.
Initially working on a consultancy basis, Tavita was made “group manager service international” with responsibility for the Pacific and refugees. He is described as fiercely loyal to Thompson.
Questions:
1 Was his consultancy the subject of an independent procurement process?
2 How much was he paid for this consultancy?
3 What were the criteria for assessing tenders?
4 Who approved the tender process and reviewed the outcome?
5 Who approved the conversion of the consultancy into a permanent position?
6 Did this appointment of Tavita meet Immigration policy guidelines for such appointments?
7 Are these guidelines in accord with best public service practice?
But he got in trouble over his appointment of Malaulau to head the new Pacific division because of a conflict of interest.
Malaulau was, and still is, a director of a policy consultancy company Tavita had set up, Pacific Edge International. Tavita had stood down from the company, but his wife remained a director.
Sources have confirmed that then Labour Department chief executive James Buwalda ordered an inquiry and Tavita was reprimanded.
8 How could Malaulau be a director of a policy consultancy company, presumably supplying consultancy services to government and be the Immigration Services Pacific Director.
9 A Google search reveals the company listed in a number of places as providing:-
Public sector, policy advice, community development, strategic planning and needs analysis
Surely this is a conflict?
Malaulau is listed as one of 2 main contacts and against the company’s phone number and with a cell phone number.
10 Yet Malaulau presumably has a full time job with the Immigration Service?
11 Who pays for the cell phone?
12 Who reviewed the hiring process undertaken by Tavita that resulted in the appointment of Malalau?
13 Did Tavita initiate and undertake this hire, whilst still employed as a consultant?
14 On what basis was a consultant, if that was the case, empowered to make hiring decisions?
15 Did the hiring of Malaulau comply with Immigration and Public Service guidelines?
16 Are those guidelines if followed sufficiently robust?
17 Is the report of the inquiry ordered by Buwalda available for review?
18 Were the terms of reference for that inquiry sufficiently broad and robust?
19 Why was Tavita only reprimanded?
Now this article on Stuff needs to be read in context with a full page article in the print edition of the Sunday Star Times by the same lead writer as the story referenced above.
On Page A9 of the SST in the section Comment & Review is an article entitled assisted passage.
The lead in is:-
If anyone else had been caught using their influence to get family members into the country, observers say, they would have been sacked immediately. But Mary Anne Thompson has friends in high places. Tony Wall reports.
The article then gives a picture of the events that have transpired which paints a very disturbing view of things, especially when the factors in the on-line article are considered also.
It seems clear that Thompson has:
1 abused her position – on more than one occasion
2 breached the department’s code of conduct
3 ignored a warning not to get involved in applications involving family members
4 filled out forms on family members behalf
Oughton in the print article comes across as somewhat naive to this reader, stating in his report:
‘I am satisfied the deputy secretary (Thompson), after assisting the applicant to complete the form…did not in any way become involved or attempt to influence the treatment of the application”
Despite Thompson admitting to him her signature ‘ could be construed as having influenced staff at the Manukau branch to treat the application other than strictly on its merits’
This would seem to have ignored the activities undertaken by Thompson, referred to earlier in the print article, where her family benefited from visa waivers. Either that or his terms of reference did not allow him to consider thee, or he was not aware of them.
Oughton appears to consider that the fact that these people were known to be connected to Thompson would not of itself constitute undue influence. Further he appears to have concluded that others involved acted on their own account.
Yet Thompson was and is the head of the Immigration Service. As noted from the on-line article her appointee in turn appointed the Director of the Pacific Division. There is at the least a strong chain of personal loyalty and thus at least a strong presumption, to this reader, of a likely favourable view of the circumstances.
There are a great many questions to be answered by the inquiry, including the ones noted above and perhaps at least these others:-
1 Are appropriate governance procedures in place with the Immigration Service?
2 Are governance procedures reviewed regularly to ensure their efficiacy?
3 Why are department staff not prohibited from completing application forms on behalf of relatives?
4 Given Thompson’s primarily policy background, why was she appointed to such a high profile operational role?
From the public’s perspective we should be asking, or insisting our representatives ensure on our behalf:-
1 That the terms of reference of the inquiry just commenced are appropriately broad and robust?
2 That the inquiry is truly independent.
Though it would appear that that battle has been lost as the SSC is carrying the inquiry out and unfortunately their record is not strong in these matters.
Given the matters uncovered by the SST, The Inquiring Mind is of the opinion that:-
1 The inquiry should be conducted by a judge.
2 The inquiry should have the power to compel evidence
3 The inquiry should be required to report on the specifics as soon as possible and on the broader implications for the Immigration Service and the public service as soon as possible thereafter.
There should be no question of burying this until after the election.
We do not want repeats of the Ingram inquiry or the one into the Setchell case. Those were not satisfactory or appropriate.
The SST print article, could not be found on line so is attached as a pdf -ap .
UPDATE – story now on line here - updated at 4.00 am
In conclusion, why is this woman still employed in this sensitive position?
Why is the public having to pay for a second inquiry?
Why was the first inquiry so weak in the findings?
How can the public have confidence in the higher echelons of the public service to administer the Immigration Act impartially and without fear or favour?
************************************
Posts on the Immigration Scandal by adamsmith1922 at The Inquiring Mind
Update 6 (essentially a note of an event – not a detailed comment)
Update 8 – similar to Number 6
Update 15 – Significant New Questions
Update 16 – New Inquiry Announced
